Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 25.2.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal, Annexure P4, vide which application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Code’) filed by respondent no.2- Saheb Singh for impleading him as a defendant in the present suit was allowed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 4.2.2008 was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff against respondent no.1-defendant on the ground that he executed an agreement in his favour for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- per acre and that Rs.5,00,000/- was received by him as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed and registered on or before 16.5.2008. As petitioner-plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the contract, however, on refusal of respondent no.1-defendant to get the sale deed executed on receipt of remaining sale consideration, the present suit has been filed. Vide order dated 12.12.2008, respondent no.1- defendant was also restrained from further alienating the land in dispute. In the written statement filed by respondent no.1-defendant he admitted the execution of the agreement to sell in favour of petitioner-plaintiff, however, plea was taken that though he was ready to perform his part of the contract, but it was petitioner-plaintiff, who was not willing and ready to perform his part of the contract.

4. Issues were framed. Part evidence of petitioner-plaintiff was also recorded when the present application was filed by respondent no.2- applicant on 9.1.2010 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code for impleading him as a party on the ground that respondent no.1-defendant had executed agreement to sell in his favour dated 18.1.2008 for a consideration of Rs.13 lacs per acre and also taken Rs.10 lacs from him as earnest money and that date of execution of sale deed was fixed as 17.6.2008. Further plea has been taken that respondent no.1-defendant in collusion with the present petitioner-plaintiff has forged and fabricated the alleged agreement dated 4.2.2008 and hence, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in this case.

5. The application has been contested by present petitionerplaintiff on the plea that the alleged agreement in favour of applicant is a forged one as the applicant is first cousin of respondent no.1-defendant and hence, the same is a result of collusion between both, i.e., respondent no.1- defendant and respondent no.2-applicant just to defeat the rights of present petitioner-plaintiff.

6. Learned trial Court allowed application filed by respondent no.2-applicant for impleading him as a party by observing that though the suit of the plaintiff can be decided in the absence of the applicant but if the applicant is not arrayed as a party, as he is claiming prior agreement in his favour, the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation.

7. Law is well settled that Court is having wide power to add any person as a party if it finds it necessary for any effective determination of the matter in dispute. For a person to be impleaded as a necessary party, he must be having right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings. He can be impleaded as a party if no effective decree can be passed in the absence of a such party.

8. Law on the point has been settled by a Bench consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, 2005(4) JT 565: 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 691: 2005(3) PLR 326: 2005(2) Civ.C.C.379: 2005 AIR (SC) 2813: 2005(6) SCC 733, wherein while dealing with the question of proper and necessary party in a suit for specific per